Wikipedia:Arbitration Committee Elections January 2006/Candidate statements/Mackensen
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Vote for me and I'll bring accountability with Prussian thoroughness. Or some such. Mackensen (talk) 19:33, 3 January 2006 (UTC)
Contents |
[edit] question
What are your views of the proposed Wikipedia:Arbitration Committee Code of Conduct and User Bill of Rights?
--HK 00:20, 4 January 2006 (UTC)
[edit] Regarding the Code of Conduct
First, I find it a sad comment on the present state of affairs that this had to be put in writing. I would argue that it shouldn't have to be binding in itself, because everything mentioned in there already falls under WP:POINT, WP:NPA, and WP:AGF—to my mind, anyway. In spirit, the proposed code embodies transparency, even-handedness, and collegiality. These are things of which we all ought to be in favor.
Now, more specifically, I find the grounds for recusal well-written but perhaps superfluous as they seem obvious standards to apply. As the proposed code says, it's a matter of common sense: if you've been entangled with another user before, you probably can't hear the case with an open mind. My experience has been that arbitrators up till now have been good about recusing themselves when there was an apparent conflict of interest; the only time I have really seen this become a problem relates to my next point–the position of administrators.
There are some seven hundred administrators on Wikipedia now (not all of whom are active). They occupy an important position for two different but related reasons—they have been entrusted by the community with executive powers, and they number among the top contributors to the community. This is not a bad thing—it makes sense to reward (punish) high levels of constructive activity with the shared responsibility for maintaining the project. This also means that they tend to be active collaborators and closely interwined with other administrators. Again, this is a good thing—we need a strong community full of people willing to work together.
However, we've also got to be capable of policing ourselves and recognizing that there are limits on everyone's authority (save Jimbo's). The Arbitration Committee has a tendency to protect administrators who have exhibited a taste for exercising power. While we encourage people to be bold, I would argue that people should be bold as editors, not as administrators. As I said earlier on the Arbitration page, any administrator who has been the subject of an upheld RfC and then an arbitration case for abuse of power has clearly breached the community's trust. The AC must be capable of recognizing when that has happened and be willing to remove powers that a user cannot be trusted to use responsibly.
Finally, I applaud the point regarding the explanation of decisions. Each arbitrator should write an opinion—of reasonable length—explaining why he arrived at the conclusions he did and citing evidence as necessary. It's far more tangible than a stale vote. Mackensen (talk) 01:20, 4 January 2006 (UTC)
[edit] Regarding the Bill of Rights
I think this proposal is well-intentioned but flawed, for two reasons: it's inflexible and redundant. Legal terminology has been creeping into the encyclopedia community, and that's unfortunate. Discussion of rule of law and precedent presupposes a codified set of laws, which we do not possess and probably could not develop. What we do have is a set of policies and guidelines, most of which are pretty flexible. If you act kindly and treat others with respect you won't run foul of them. The one outstanding exception, the three-revert rule, has failed to prevent revert wars and if anything has made them worse by encouraging wiki-lawyering, sockpuppets, and wheel wars. It's broken, though I don't know how one might fix it. Further codifying policy would, I fear, have an adverse effect.
Second, requiring administrators to enforce arbitration committee rulings seems perverse. I would stand that on its head: administrators shall not thwart the arbitration committee. That is, no one can make an admin enforce a ruling, but no admin can openly defy the ruling (by unblocking someone blocked because of the ruling, for example). The arbitration committee as a body has the permission of the community to hear cases, weigh the evidence, and make rulings. An administrator defying that would in effect be creating a schism within the Wikipedia. On the other hand, this is a permissive place, and no one who acts in good faith is forced to do anything.
Third, the rules already apply to everyone. That they aren't enforced equally is a failure of process, not conception. What we need is to inculcate the idea that the legitimacy of administrator executive power rests upon acting on the consensus of the community, and that while editors can be bold, administrators should exercise the utmost reserve in their actions. It's possible to wear both hats, and vital to remember which is which. Mackensen (talk) 01:36, 4 January 2006 (UTC)
[edit] Questions from User:-Ril-
- The following questions are for each candidate, and do not specifically target you
Do you hold any strong political or religious opinions (e.g. concerning George Bush, Islam, or on which end you should break a boiled egg)? If so, would you recuse yourself from cases centred on these?
- None that I'm aware of. I have however, previously been involved with the Gdansk/Danzig affair and the long running difficulties over Henry Kissinger and other Communism-related articles. Because of that, I would likely recuse to avoid even the appearance of conflict of interest.
How willing are you to contest the decisions of other arbitrators rather than just "go with the flow"?
- I'm willing to write a separate opinion and indicate why I don't agree with the decisison and what I would have done differently. I'm not willing to actively thwart a decision once adopted. Regardless of whether we like a decision or not, once it's adopted we need to stand by it.
Do you view all requests to re-address cases, particularly requests made by those most penalised, as being automatically without merit?
- Not necessarily. I do think that there are some users who will challenge a decision again and again, without bringing forward new information. That's a non-starter. On the other, there is the case of VeryVerily, which is widely regarded as a disastrous decision because it ignored evidence and associated editors with actions they didn't commit and pages they didn't it. Such a case warrants revision.
In the case against Yuber, it was decided by the arbitration committee that it is the duty of arbitrators to investigate, and rule on the behaviour of not only one party involved, but all of them. Do you support this decision?
- Yes, with qualifications. This isn't a courtroom, we don't have "plaintiffs" and "defendants." It is entirely possible and indeed likely that both/all parties are at fault to some degree. Focusing on one party's actions to the exclusion of others may overlook key facts or mutual abuses. That being said, I would argue that the arbitration committee should try to limit itself to an investigation of those abuses actually brought before it. That's a difficult line to draw, but I think the best rule of thumb would be this: "does this diff directly concern at least two of the parties bringing the case?"
Do you believe that regardless of Jimbo Wales' own views on the matter, the community should be able to strip arbitrators of their position under certain circumstances, and if so, what circumstances?
- I'm tempted to say yes, but I cannot fathom a mechanism that would properly balance community concerns and the necessary priviliege of the arbitrator. Being a member of arbcom opens one to considerable abuse. Your actions are always questioned, your wisdom disputed. If an arbitrator had to fear for the safety of their position they would be unable to make an unpopular ruling—and that's going to happen now and then. The flip side is that arbitrators often give the impression that they answer to no one, and that's not healthy either.
As a corollory:Do you believe, regardless of Jimbo Wales' view on the matter, that a large number of signatories (e.g. 150 requesting censure against 50 supporting the arbitrator) to an RFC against an arbitrator is enough that the arbitrator should be judged as having been rejected by the community in light of their actions, and consequently for them to be forcibly stripped of their post?
- I think it would present an invitation for said arbitrator to excuse him or herself. If such an RfC, focusing specifically on said arbitrators conduct as an arbitrator was brought, and that 3-1 margin represented a true consensus of the Wikipedia community (not just new people, but people who had been around a while), I think that arbitrator would be honor-bound to resign. If they did not, and matters continued to disintegrate, I would consider that time for an appeal to Jimbo. Regardless, it hasn't happened yet.
wikipedia has a policy of NPOV. Excepting straw men, have you ever introduced a substantial opinion or fact that contradicts your own political or religious viewpoint into an article on a topic of which you have strong opinions, and if you have, how frequently do you do so compared to your other substatial edits to articles?
- I've generally tried to avoid controversial articles, in part because my real interest lies in mid-nineteenth century England, which isn't a hot topic around here. That being said, I introduced language into the Kissinger article to offset the talk of war crimes, because Kissinger cannot be viewed just as a war criminal (for my part, I agree with Hitchens).
--Victim of signature fascism | help remove biblecruft 02:15, 5 January 2006 (UTC)
[edit] Recusal, Code of Conduct, Expansion
I am asking these questions of all candidates:
1. Do you pledge to abide by the proposed recusal guidelines at Wikipedia:Arbitration Committee Code of Conduct#Recusal?
- see above
2. Are there any parts of Wikipedia:Arbitration Committee Code of Conduct that you do not agree with? If so, please describe in detail how you would improve them.
- see above
3. Will you please pledge to support expanding the number of seats on the Arbitration Committee? If not, how would you propose alleviating the present arbitration backlog?
- Part of the problem is that those arbitrators we do have don't have the time to do their job. In such a case they ought to stand aside so that someone acceptable to the community with enough time can take their place. I think we also need to educate editors that arbcom really is the place of last resort--if you look at the arbcom page, you see many cases which have been brought far too early.
Thank you for your kind consideration of and answers to these questions. —James S. 06:52, 5 January 2006 (UTC)
[edit] Reposted from Fifelfoo's talk page
The Arbitration Committee is a body which has been granted the authority by the Wikipedia community to hear disputes and issue decisions which carry the weight of policy. This entails tremendous responsibility upon the committee—free from oversight, save the polls, it has the moral obligation to protect the encyclopedia while not injuring the individuals who collectively called it into existence. To that end, the goal of the Arbitration Committee should be to resolve disputes in a timely and transparent manner, so that those people who wish to contribute in good faith to Wikipedia may continue to do so without injury or delay. Its role should not be punitive nor judicial but rather advisory: the purpose of the community is to edit the encyclopedia, so the purpose of the Arbitration Committee is to help people edit the encyclopedia. When there arise situations where a party is so opposed to the community, so incapable of working with consensus, that there very presence constitutes disruption, only then does the committee recommend punishment. Even then, it is up to the community, expressed this time through the administrators, to carry out this recommendation.
Realize, that the committee is the community and that any decision ought to be an expression of the community's will—its consensus. When the committee acts in a manner inconsistent with preexisting consensus, be it divined through policy, Requests for Comment, or plain common sense, it acts illegitimately, and has harmed the encyclopedia by damaging the community's ability to police itself. Mackensen (talk) 11:33, 11 January 2006 (UTC)
[edit] Concerns over personal attack templates
User:Improv, who is also a candidate for the arbitration committee, has placed the following statement on Wikipedia:Village pump (policy):
- I am concerned about templates surviving AfD that appear to contrast with established policy. In particular, I feel that these templates are Poisoning the well when it comes for how we treat our fellow wikipedians. There are circumstances where knowing too much about one's neighbours politicises how one deals with them. This is, to an extent, unavoidable in society, but wearing signs of hate as badges on our shoulders takes what is a small problem that we can usually deal with into the realm of being damaging to the community. Already, there have been signs of people refusing to help each other because they are on different ends of a political spectrum -- this seems likely to get worse if this trend continues. Some people cry that this is an attack on their first amendment rights (if they're American, anyhow), but that doesn't apply here because Wikipedia is not the U.S. government -- it is a community that has always self-regulated, and more importantly it is an encyclopedia with a goal of producing encyclopedic content. We have a tradition of respecting a certain amount of autonomy on userpages, but never absolute autonomy. We might imagine, for example, templates with little swastikas saying "this user hates jews". I am not saying that such a thing would be morally equivalent to this template against scientology, but rather that we should aim to minimise that aspect of ourselves, at least on Wikipedia, so we can make a better encyclopedia. The spirit of NPOV does not mean that we cannot have strong views and still be wikipedians, but rather that we should not wear signs of our views like badges, strive not to have our views be immediately obvious in what we edit and how we argue, and fully express ourselves in other places (Myspace? Personal webpage?) where it is more appropriate and less divisive. [1]
I am inviting all candidates, including Improv, to expand on this theme on their questions pages. Do you agree that this is a cause for concern as we move into 2006? How do you see the role of the arbitration committee in interpreting the interpretation of Wikipedia policy in the light of this concern? --Tony Sidaway|Talk 20:49, 12 January 2006 (UTC)
- Response
I would agree that this is a cause for concern; I am less convinced that this, in itself, will become a matter for the Arbitration Committee. Improv is right that these userboxes which promote particular views, stances, or ideologies have the power to divide the community in a visible and explicit fashion. That's not a good thing. Obviously editors have their own personal biases which reveal themselves over time; but it's one thing to gradually show your colors and quite another to wear them on your sleeve.
Those being my views, I think it's up to the community to decide how it feels about these templates. I don't like them myself, but if they've survived TfD then I think it best to let the matter rest for the moment. Go back to editing the encyclopedia; the people whose primary occupation are userboxes will probably slink away after a while (or start contributing).
If the Arbitration Committee has a role to play in this, it should be in resolving actual disputes which exist between users because of the userboxes, not over them. That is, I can see a template which attacks Jews being the focus of a dispute connected with, say, the David Irving article. The problem with these userboxes is the motivation behind them, not the boxes in themselves, and I think we need to realize that. A personal attack is when one user attacks another. Templates don't attack people.
In such a case, the committee might well find that the template in question was purposefully disruptive and hurtful (thus becoming an obvious candidate for deletion). What this doesn't address are those cases which are marginal. The Users against Scientology template is a good example. Is this an attack template? I'm not sure. It proffers a strong opinion, and is aesthetically unpleasing. But it also expresses a strong opinion, in theory, on someone's user page. Those do that fairly often anyway.
Where the line has been drawn, traditionally, is directly attacking other users on the user page. This is one step removed. I don't like it much, and I won't do it myself, but absent direct disruption (and the resulting RfC) I can't see the need for Arbitration Committee involvement. Certainly, the ArbCom has no official role to play in determining policy—that's for every member of the community to do. Mackensen (talk) 03:14, 14 January 2006 (UTC)
